Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 119 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2017 7:21 PM
366 online now:
Astrophile, DrJones*, Faith, Tangle, xongsmith (5 members, 361 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DOCJ
Post Volume:
Total: 816,241 Year: 20,847/21,208 Month: 1,280/2,326 Week: 616/345 Day: 139/134 Hour: 0/12

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
262728
29
3031Next
Author Topic:   WTF is wrong with people
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5928
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 421 of 457 (708884)
10-15-2013 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
10-15-2013 10:47 PM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
Wrong. You shouldn't try to play at science. You suck at it.

A fact or an observation is very much different from a theory.

A theory explains facts!

And gravity as a theory is not as well documented as is evolution as a theory.

Find the list of definitions I posted a while back and try, really try, to focus for just a few minutes.

But I know you won't because you might be in danger of learning something...


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2702
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 422 of 457 (708885)
10-15-2013 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by Faith
10-15-2013 10:23 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
However, haven't there been some who have studied it extensively and devoted their lives to the science who have come to see it as false, even written books against it but do NOT get fame and fortune?Or if they do they don't get it from the scientific community, which remains untouched by their new insights.

Ok name a few please. And do double check who they are and what they said, you dont want to lie like the discovery institute. when they published a list of scientists that reject evolution.

Since you probably wont watch, the vast vast vast majority of the people on the list had nothing to do with evolution some of them where park rangers, electricians...

To my mind this goes to demonstrate that the whole thing is far from science and really just a matter of belief and opinion, something that can't be definitively pinned down because it's all unproven speculation etc. If someone does see through it there is no way for them to actually prove their case either. It's always a matter of hoping to be persuasive about some vague plausibilities. That's the case on both sides of the debate in the end.

Ok same as above name a few ....

My parents sent their four offspring to church just because it was the thing to do and a way to get us out of their hair for a while on the weekend. They themselves went only on the holidays and for special occasions. Neither of them was an atheist but they certainly weren't believers either. They might as well have been secular but they didn't preach that point of view either. It was a teacher in high school who aggressively ridiculed Christianity that turned me into an atheist, which I remained for the next thirty years. During which I also believed in evolution and read articles about it from time to time.

To bad the teacher dint teach you about evolution

I believe I've demonstrated on this very thread that that is false, that there is a natural genetic barrier to macroevolution. Thought I'd bold that because I have the impression you didn't bother to read much of what I wrote anyway. On this thread or any of the others where I've pursued the same argument.

Yea i read every reply you made to me in none did you explain what happens when speciation accures do mutations stop, every mutation is an increase in genetic diversity of the new species a good, a bad ,and a neutral one.

I don't know. I stick to the topics I feel I can best argue and I believe I've shown that macroevolution is impossible, in which case all the other unanswered questions just have to be left for later.

Well if macro evolution is impossible how do we get identical retro viral insertions in identical places of the genome of different species. If the species are related this is simple to explain common descent. If macro evolution is impossible as you say then the only explanation is MAGIC. A god that would place such false evidence of evolution in our genomes and then demmand that we believe that animals where created in kinds or go to hell is an evil god.

Since you claim not to understand this evidence let me try to explain

here is the image again:

It shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans. The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendent's of that organism.

finding retro genes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.

But of course this is something you will never understand because there is no argument against this. How can random insertions be present in the same place of the genome in different species. And only in the ones that evolutionists claim are related. Well i dont understand that so il just ignore it.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2702
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 423 of 457 (708887)
10-15-2013 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Faith
10-15-2013 10:47 PM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
Newton Gravity
A law that is wrong, dosent work for mercury we needed an Einstein for that.

Harvey Blood Circulation

Yea a theory

Germ theory Pasteur

Yea it even has the word theory because its still a theory

Solar system planets circle sun Galileo, Copernicus

Still a theory

Wegener's continental drift

Still a theory

The spiral helix form of DNA Crick and Watson

Still a theory

And many more.

Still theories

A fact or something indisputably true is only obtained trough direct objective observation.

Usually using tools to help us say a measuring tool to measure a piece of string anyone that measures the piece of string with that tool will see that the string is x uits long. So its a fact that that string is x units long.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 10:47 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 11:50 PM frako has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25810
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 424 of 457 (708889)
10-15-2013 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by frako
10-15-2013 11:28 PM


THE ToE IS NOT IN ANY SENSE TRUE SCIENCE
Sure, I knew you'd all play with the words that way, but none of those "theories" is in any sense unproved the way the ToE is unproved. All of them are about things we CAN observe, and the ToE absolutely is not, it's about an unwitnessed and unprovable past that can never be disproved for that reason. All you have to do is keep rearranging the props imaginatively whenever the theory is challenged because the whole thing is nothing but mental hooha.

NOT true of gravity which any of us can test for ourselves, IN THE PRESENT, who cares about Mercury; blood circulation, well that one's a little harder to observe but there are hundreds of ways we easily infer it from experience, like feeling our pulse, IN THE PRESENT; continental drift has been measured, IN THE PRESENT; we can't see germs but we know all about the effects of pretending they aren't there, IN THE PRESENT; and the DNA helix works for tons of other observations, IN THE PRESENT. All of these things work in hundreds and hundreds of ways, IN THE PRESENT.

The ToE does absolutely nothing but sit there and dictate to us how we are supposed to understand things in the past we couldn't possibly observe, that nobody has ever seen, that we can't make use of in any way, that doesn't "work" at all in the sense the other "theories" do, it just sits there and sucks a ton of science into it to no purpose whatever, pretends to be the cause of medical breakthroughs when it isn't, and so on,. It's a big fat lie and usurper of science.

AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY PEOPLE SAY THIS SORT OF THING ABOUT THE ToE. It's the truth but you can't see it. You can't see why half of your "scientific" observations are just wishful nonsense and the ones that have some truth in them are chewed up by theory so they don't make sense out of anything and someday they all WILL come back to bite you. Oh well, oh well, oh well.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by frako, posted 10-15-2013 11:28 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 12:34 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2702
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 425 of 457 (708891)
10-16-2013 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
10-15-2013 11:50 PM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
All of them are about things we CAN observe

Naw its just that when we do observe it you say silly things like unicellular organisms have their own peculiar thingy going on. But yea if noone sees a crime then the crime dint happen no matter what evidence you find.

All you have to do is keep rearranging the props imaginatively whenever the theory is challenged because the whole thing is nothing but mental hooha.

No all you need to do to prove it wrong is find a bunny rabbit in the pre Cambrian era but you cant and invent silly notions of what you think science is redefine terms to suit you, Invent imaginary genetic barriers even though you said mutations happen ie any piece of the genome can change any time. You deny increasing diversity by mutation even though ts pretty clear that if you have a genome that is a bit different that adds a different genome to the population increasing diversity, if you are shown evidence that has no other explanation then common descent you dont understand that yea does not compute with a religious mind.....

NOT true of gravity which any of us can test for ourselves, who cares about Mercury,

LOL yea and its the scientists who are not doing their job right who cares about mercury LOL

So you dont buy atomic theory either its kind of hard to test by yourself the equipment is expensive. Unless you claim you cant test change in the genome.

The ToE does absolutely nothing but sit there and dictate to us how we are supposed to understand things we couldn't possibly observe

So every murderer that ha-sent been witnessed murdering should go free because he wasn't observed.

And creation we couldn't possibly have observed creation, all we have is a book written in the bronze age that claims that the world was made in 7 days. How can we be sure Moses wasnt tripping on shrooms when he wrote it. We cant test it for ourselves.

The ToE does absolutely nothing but sit there and dictate to us how we are supposed to understand things we couldn't possibly observe, that nobody has ever seen, that we can't make use of in any way, that doesn't "work" at all in the sense the other "theories" do, it just sits there and sucks a ton of science into it to no purpose whatever, pretends to be the cause of medical breakthroughs when it isn't, and so on,. It's a big fat lie and usurper of science

Yea and the best person to judge this is someone that occasionally looked at the theory while he was an atheist. Not the thousands of scientists who actually did the work, and studied the subject.

AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY PEOPLE SAY THIS SORT OF THING ABOUT THE ToE. It's the truth but you can't see it. You can't see why half of your "scientific" observations are just wishful nonsense and the rest are chewed up by theory so they don't make sense out of anything and someday they all WILL come back to bite you. Oh well, oh well, oh well.

Yea well its currently the best explanation we have and it do sent look like its about to change SINCE EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE AGREES WITH IT, you not understanding it or wishing it away does not change that. But even if the TOE would get disprove tomorrow its no big deal theories get proven wrong all the time its how we learn. What i do know is that creationism or events similar to the bible creation story WILL NEVER BE RAISED TO THE STATUS OF A WORKING SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Why because they have been proven wrong numerous of times while evolution still hasn't been.

Even the courts agree Creationism isnt science, Intelligent design is creationism in desquise, what is it called now teach the controversy LOL what controversy, what god made the universe

Look you might think that TOE is unproven and whatnot but the good thing is your opinion does not matter, its a SCIENCE topic so scientists get to vote electricians, park rangers, sanitation engineers..... dont get a vote. Your opinions dont matter. But People like you dont care about that and scream their opinions in front of schools, courthouses and the like, you decreasing the number of future scientists and keeping actual scientists away from their work so they can try to explain to the media why you are wrong even though it seems that allot of people are incapable of understanding why they are wrong.

Look creationism is the same as homoeopathy you are homoeopaths trying to prove medicine wrong and replacing it with homoeopathy.

Your arguments are insane
Yea well mutations happen (changes in the genome anything about it can change any time) but those changes can never amount to loads of changes because of um a gentic barrier of some sort.

When i point out numerous unicellular examples of changes beneficial mutations and what not oh thats well um unicellular beings are different somehow duno how or why i just know it in my hart that they are. Still haven't gotten the answer do they remain this different if they become multicellular organisms

I show you evidence that is only explainable in the light of TOE um well i dont understand that so i wont talk about it.

.....

Just tell the truth you will never believe in evolution no matter what because your religion prohibits it. Its that simple and its true or suffer the wrath of your god thau shall not bare false witness its a commandment look it up it means dont lie.

Its ok i understand religion is a powerful tool that can make you believe or deny anything its not your fault


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 11:50 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2013 1:02 AM frako has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5928
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 426 of 457 (708892)
10-16-2013 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by frako
10-16-2013 12:34 AM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
Its ok i understand religion is a powerful tool that can make you believe or deny anything its not your fault

But it is!

The human mind is the most powerful and wonderful thing we have, and it is sad to see one wasted on myth, nonsense, and delusion.

To deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence is to waste and deny that wonderful mind. I can't imagine any deity that would be impressed by that.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 12:34 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 8:27 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 432 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:21 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12960
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 427 of 457 (708893)
10-16-2013 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
10-15-2013 6:28 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
quote:

Sure, it's "arrogant" to think you are right and evolutionists wrong; sure, it's "dishonest" to claim that terms mean something different than they mean to an evolutionist. Double standard? Clever way of insisting I talk like an evolutionist, seems to me.

It's arrogant and dishonest to declare evolution "dead" just because you've decided that the fatal flaw in your argument isn't important.

It's arrogant and dishonest to rely on hate and slander to dismiss expert opinion - when you don't like it.

It's dishonest to falsely attribute your own faults to your opponents, although creationists are addicted to that particular dishonesty.

quote:

I don't know if I'll come back to this post or not but I was going to try to answer your earlier one and it got rather stale so I let it go. But maybe I could at least comment again on this idea of a "hole" in my argument, by which of course you mean that I haven't effectively answered the claims about mutations.

You haven't given a reason WHY mutations can't restore diversity, over the timescales available, you haven't countered the theoretical argument that we should expect increase and decrease to be in dynamic equilibrium, you haven't countered the problem that your conclusion is in conflict with conclusions based on strong evidence other than to say that you disagree. That's a pretty big hole that can't be filled with vague handwaving about "blurring" the species or insisting that it doesn't matter.

quote:

So I'll try to answer it now: I agree that in the abstract it looks obvious, of course, just a matter of alleles-out-alleles-in, but considering what I’ve been arguing it’s far from obvious

Even if that were true - and it isn't - you need to have a stronger case than "it isn't obvious". If it's even a reasonable possibility, the evidence that diversity HAS been maintained overrides your opinion that it couldn't be.

quote:

The argument, again, first describes the trend to reduced genetic diversity through the various “mechanisms of evolution” that select and isolate new populations, including even most particularly Natural Selection. This trend is NOT normally acknowledged in discussions of evolution, it's always described as mutation plus selection onward and upward through the entire supposed genealogical tree, although when I point it out some here will acknowledge it without acknowledging that it hadn't entered their minds before.

It would have to be a trend to be acknowledged as such. You've produced no evidence of an ACTUAL long-term downward trend. Again, as I pointed out before, relying on the relatively short periods where new species are forming while ignoring the far longer periods where we can't see much happening (but it still is) is going to give a misleading view.

quote:

…and second, another part of the argument is that maintaining a new subspecies or breed or variety DEPENDS on preventing genetic increase -- or, (as breeders know about their own work), you’ll just destroy your NS-wrought adaptation or Speciation-wrought new “Species” which are, according to the ToE, supposedly stepping stones along the way upward and onward -- sky’s the limit -- to more and more new and different “Species”;

And again we have the view that there is some "intended" form for the new species and that is just wrong. Making a false analogy with breeding is not a good argument. Even worse, it is illogical. The parent species has its distinctive form and in your view it has more genetic diversity than the child species. So why can't the child species increase it's diversity to the same level ?

quote:

With that in the back of my mind it is intuitively obvious to me that mutation even if it exists and does anything like what you all think it does, is at best redundant, at worst an interference with what the ToE requires on the way from single-celled organism to human being.

So your arguments are 1) to claim that your conclusion is true and 2) to make a false analogy (which, if I remember correctly you have previously denied - certainly I have addressed it before).

Your points don't even do what you claimed for them.

quote:

And then, third, of course it looks to me like mutations of the sort you expect do NOT exist and those that do DON’T do what you think they do. Percy quoted the article about the Jutland cattle as referring to mutations, and the two mutations described are “stuttering alleles” and changes in a segment of DNA that do nothing (as far as anybody knows). From that kind of mutation you couldn’t possibly get anything remotely like what the ToE requires.

In fact you don't know what they do. But again, you make the mistake of looking at the wrong thing. You can't generalise from just two examples - and it's hardly honest to ignore the other examples that have been raised in previous threads. So you've got two examples of genetic changes that - so far as you know don't affect phenotype. Does that really mean that NO genetic changes could affect phenotype ? It would be irrational in the extreme to make that claim. So there's plenty wrong with your argument there - it doesn't even consider the circumstances of the study or what it was trying to do.

quote:

That's my answer. There is no "hole" in my argument.

Because obviously you would make desperate - and obviously inadequate - attempts to cover up a hole that isn't there...

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 6:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4959
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 428 of 457 (708895)
10-16-2013 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Faith
10-15-2013 6:28 PM


Re: Contribution of Drift
Faith writes:

The argument, again, first describes the trend to reduced genetic diversity through the various “mechanisms of evolution” that select and isolate new populations, including even most particularly Natural Selection. This trend is NOT normally acknowledged in discussions of evolution, it's always described as mutation plus selection onward and upward through the entire supposed genealogical tree, although when I point it out some here will acknowledge it without acknowledging that it hadn't entered their minds before.

I've just picked this out of your rants because you are obviously very impressed with it and think you've discovered some evolutionary dirty truth.

I've said before that the fact that the isolation of a small sub-set of a main population reduces genetic diversity in the smaller population (and in the larger one too but to a lessor degree) is a statement of the blindingly obvious. Is there a reason why you think that biologists may not have noticed this?

Just so you're clear, you do know that biologists have a name for it and have recognised it as a method of speciation for over 70 years don't you?

In population genetics, the founder effect is the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. It was first fully outlined by Ernst Mayr in 1942,[1] using existing theoretical work by those such as Sewall Wright.[2] As a result of the loss of genetic variation, the new population may be distinctively different, both genotypically and phenotypically, from the parent population from which it is derived. In extreme cases, the founder effect is thought to lead to the speciation and subsequent evolution of new species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 6:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


(4)
Message 429 of 457 (708897)
10-16-2013 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Faith
10-15-2013 7:55 PM


Re: Frako's Msg 86 list of proofs of evolution
Speciation: Microevolution, nothing that supports the ToE.

You're right, Faith. Just like the turtles its micro-evolution all the way down.

Miacidae


*************************************************V
Population split. Micro-evolution.****-------------------------------------------------------------
******************************V************************************V
Proailurus
********Amphicyonidae

************************************************************************V
***************V**********More micro-evolution and splits.***-------------------------------------------------------------
******************************************************V************************************V
Felidae
*******Ursinae
Daphoenodon

***********V***********V***********And more. *********V********************************V

*******
***************

And the most startling thing is that after 65 million years, after micro-evolving wolf, bear and lion, there couldn't possibly be any alleles left.

Ever wonder what an allele-less animal looked like?

Yep, your kittycat!
(Explains a lot doesn't it)

Amazing, evolution is!

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Faith, posted 10-15-2013 7:55 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2702
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 430 of 457 (708903)
10-16-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Coyote
10-16-2013 1:02 AM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
But it is!

The human mind is the most powerful and wonderful thing we have, and it is sad to see one wasted on myth, nonsense, and delusion.

To deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence is to waste and deny that wonderful mind. I can't imagine any deity that would be impressed by that.

Yes it is sad but its not his fault, its religions. There are many biological facts religion uses to brainwash their members. Like our instinct to belong to a community, in every religion if you turn away from it you loose the support of the community even become a threat to that community no one wants that. It also appels to our first and second brain responsible for emotion hey override our newest layer because even if it sounds reasonable it feels wrong. It also uses fear one of our strongest emotions, it takes away or diminishes the fear of death, removing religion would bring it back and no one wants to be afraid. It also brings a new fear to the table if i don't believe im going to feel pain for a verry long time (hell). Fear keeps agoraphobics inside on a sunny day its a verry strong tool in the arsenal of religion. And just in case some of the programming they did to you might get fixed they make you come back to get an update and reason cleanse every Sunday.

Its about as much his fault as it is a claustrophobic's fault that he has an irrational fear of tight spaces.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2013 1:02 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 8:56 AM frako has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29182
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 431 of 457 (708905)
10-16-2013 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by frako
10-16-2013 8:27 AM


A partial summary.
Nonsense.

Yes, some religions do try to brainwash or con the members, but to just say that religion is to blame denies all the evidence out there.

Religious people also contributed to our knowledge and understanding of evolution, global warming, endangered species, germ theory, the big bang, physics, medicine, just about any field you care to mention.

Yes, there is a Christian Cult of Ignorance but there is also a Conservative Cult of Ignorance and Muslim Cult of Ignorance and Liberal Cult of Ignorance and Atheist Cult of Ignorance and ...

The question of why folk deny such things, why they deny evidence does come down to comfort but that is true in many areas. It is human nature to accept the status quo until the pain of not changing becomes greater than the pain of change. That is most often seen today in personal relations; marriages are a great example.

In the case of issues we often address here that conflict does devolve to changing the status of the Bible. So called Biblical Christians have a status quo that is based on denying evidence and finding work arounds that allow them to maintain the comfortable fictions. They begin by believing that the Bible is without contradictions even though the very first two books of the Bible are mutually exclusive.

Once you build a belief system that is based on mental dishonesty then denying reality and evidence becomes easy and comfortable.

Edited by Admin, : Rerender after clearing member's censored word list.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 8:27 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:23 AM jar has responded
 Message 438 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 11:28 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9564
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 432 of 457 (708909)
10-16-2013 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Coyote
10-16-2013 1:02 AM


Re: Reasons why this thread is due for Summary
Coyote writes:

The human mind is the most powerful and wonderful thing we have, and it is sad to see one wasted on myth, nonsense, and delusion.

To deny reality in the face of overwhelming evidence is to waste and deny that wonderful mind.

Its entertaining to read these debates/discussions because through our words, we all get to "know" each other in an anecdotal sense. Interactions between humans are part of the process...imagine a man--a scientist--living alone on a planet who came up with several theories (and perhaps a few facts) on his own...without any interaction with others. Would his work be important? If so, to whom?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2013 1:02 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 11:33 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9564
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 433 of 457 (708911)
10-16-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 431 by jar
10-16-2013 8:56 AM


Re: A partial summary.
jar writes:

In the case of issues we often address here that conflict does devolve to changing the status of the Bible. So called Biblical Christians have a status quo that is based on denying evidence and finding work arounds that allow them to maintain the comfortable fictions. They begin by believing that the Bible is without contradictions even though the very first two books of the Bible are mutually exclusive.

Did it ever occur to you that apparent contradictions cause one to think?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 8:56 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 10:37 AM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29182
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 434 of 457 (708913)
10-16-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Phat
10-16-2013 10:23 AM


Re: A partial summary.
Since you use the term "apparent contradictions' if by thinking you mean honest critical thinking then my answer would be "No."

There is a difference between honest critical thinking and just making shit up.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:23 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by Phat, posted 10-16-2013 10:55 AM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9564
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 435 of 457 (708914)
10-16-2013 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 434 by jar
10-16-2013 10:37 AM


Re: A partial summary.
perhaps, but I dont believe that critical thinking is the same for everyone. One man may "throw god away" since they believe that GOD, if GOD exists will exist anyway and expects that person to freely question and doubt. Another man may believe that God cannot be thrown away to begin with...it would be like throwing the air or the water away...impossible. Both may be honest yet both may arrive at differing conclusions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 10:37 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2013 11:05 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 437 by jar, posted 10-16-2013 11:08 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 440 by frako, posted 10-16-2013 11:38 AM Phat has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
262728
29
3031Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017